EV general discussion

**prelude** · 1st September 2025, 07:33 PM

wow. I did not expect my "simple" contribution a while back to result in stoking up the fire underneath this debate so much

Perhaps in all the posts (this thread is up to almost 200 pages long by now!) all the pros? and cons have been lost in the discussion.

As a person that agrees with the venerable mr. Clarkson on EV's being soulless microwave ovens and chest freezers

allow me to address captain rightfoot's and others concerns regarding 'security?, ?big oil? and ?environmental impact? as best I can.

My little proza will take them in order of importance where possible.

Let's start with security. The argument has been made (albeit perhaps briefly and strewn across a large range of previous posts) that anything chinese is basically not a good idea. I agree. The ccp does not have the best interests of any citizens in the world at heart, not even their own quite often it seems. In my opinion this means that anything produced in that country by companies that are mainly chinese owned should be avoided. Put tarifs on them (seems to be popular) ban them, whatever. Since 90% of the entire green agenda seems to be coming from china in on form or another, I see it as a real and present danger and thus should be stamped out. I am sorry of that inconveniences any persons EV dream. And yes, that also means a bunch of electronics in modern ICE vehicles no doubt.

All that talk of 'my PV system produces?? what it has actually produced is more capital in a communist country that has clearly stated in, IIRC, 1948 that it wants to be the world dominating power by 2048 and that is not a good thing. Of course, unless you bought your installation a long long time ago when the rest of the world was still producing this stuff. At least today where the discussion is taking place chances are you are not even able to buy non chinese products.

Mind you, I am not going into the quality debate right now, I think we can skip that and look at the underlying problems first.

The best choice, what a certain much maligned person on the america's is trying to achieve, would be to take back production of 'stuff? (whatever it may be) to your country or region or at the very least your global allies. If I look at the united states of europe, pardon me, the european union, what we SHOULD have done is push low cost labour towards the former eastern block countries that were now members of the EU. That way capital would have flowed into the coffers of the (let's say) Polish, we would have increased their standard of living AND after 20 years they would not go for world domination but be a ?1st world? country, adding to the coffers of the EU strengthening the west in general.

I am fairly certain this can and should (have been) done in down undah albeit in a different way no doubt due to your geography. In any case, in short, ?fuel? security is a valid argument, but I believe this (above) to be a far more important problem to be solved FIRST.

Then, big oil as it was used to be known and anti climate change etc. opinions. I agree, admit, concur that these things have existed and probably still do. I do wish to point out however that ?big oil? as a collective term has been at least complimented or is being replaced even by a new 'mafia? if you will allow me: ?big green?. This lobby is at least as pernicious, manipulative, etc. as its other ?big? older brother from which it has pretty much copied the rulebook. It is not about the environment, it's bout making money, lots of it and by any means. If truly done in the name of the environment I salute the Rory Sutherland types that have masterminded this propaganda machine. Mind you, I am not arguing there is NO good to come from ?big green? but the same can be said about ?big oil?, it too had and still has its merits.

Lastly the environment. This is the big one isn't it? Firstly I would like to take the stance that CO2 is not important for this part of my lengthy post. ie. I will ignore it for now and address it at the very end. Let us first get into the impact of resources and recycling. It is here where I have the most problems with the modern world and the so called ?green revolution?. To the best of my knowledge and research capabilities (ie. the most accurate and recent data I can find) it seems that most things ?green? are not too recyclable unfortunately. Let's take the following premise:

an ICE and EV vehicle are the same apart from their propulsion. The chassis, bodywork, controls, wheels, windows, pretty much everything is the same. From a recycling/environmental impact POV we can cross these off and only deal with two things (well three actually).

fuel/battery
engine/electric motor

The third being difference in weight but we'll glance over that and hand that over to the EV for free for now

Let's start with the easy part, the engine/electric motor. Both are made of mainly aluminium and steel these days which is pretty easy to recycle well. Sure the electric motor has copper but being a metal it will recycle just fine. Both have a degree of plastics involved but we?'ll call that largely even. The ICE is bigger perhaps, but I do not see this as a very big deal since the recycling of metal is so very near to 100% anyway. We can cross of the larger volume of metal in an ICE to the increased complexity of rare earth magnets in the electric motor I guess.

Of course the fuel tank of a modern ICE vehicle is no longer made of steel but plastic so there is that. I would like to see them use metal again but hey. The battery, the big point of course, however is not as recyclable as far as I can find the best self reported figures (thus I do take em with a grain of salt) are 95% but real world figures seem to be closer to 80%. In comparison a lead acid battery is recycled up to 99%. I will skip a whole books worth of text in itself about how the processes work and what is recycled and what not since this post is going to big big enough as it is but it boils down to this: recovery of complex chemicals and plastics. This process is not free and acid leeching and other processes are not exactly environmentally friendly and energy intensive.

What you end up with in the end is a 'sludge? of questionable chemical stability and impact that is simply not economically viable to further refine or not even possible. This brings me neatly to my problem with the modern world: we are creating more and more ?green? options that in the end are just not that green. To simplify it by a lot, all 3 major green pushes of this moment have the same sludge problem. Solar panels are very recyclable, up to a point. Sure the metal frame and the glass panel are easy to do but the doped silicon wafers do have a limit as to where we can extract the silicon and separate the chemicals. Yet we have put uncountable millions of tons of the things everywhere. The same goes for LED lights, even more so I would argue, since the darn things are so small. (and thus more difficult to recycle)

So, no. I am sorry but ?green? is not what I would call any of these initiatives. We are creating rivers of chemical sludge and digging up the entire planet to get to them.

Let's put this into perspective, the best recyclable battery is lead acid. Sure it is heavier and lasts less but we could have all been driving milk floats decades ago! The same goes for lighting, the best recyclable light is the incandescent lightbulb, after all it is a piece of glass, some metal and a vacuum? Crush the darn thing, and melt down it's constituent parts. I mean, with all that green energy it would not be a problem that they are less efficient right?

So. I guess it is time to address that proverbial elephant in the room. CO2. According to some it is the end of the world (and not even as we know it but end period.) and to others it is plant food. I guess the truth is somewhere in between those two points (and I do not mean the middle). I find it fascinating to see that we make a HUGE problem out of it in some circles but we seem to refuse to actually fix it, and with that I do not mean go the entire green road we have discussed above. I know it is simplified but we are able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere if we want to and we can then either use it or put it back under ground. Sure it is very expensive but I wonder what is more expensive in the end? Let us expand that and put it like this: if climate change mitigation (sea level rise whatever) is going to cost the world trillions, is that not cheaper than what we are doing now? Would simply recycling CO2 into synthetic fuel not be at least as efficient?

Ah well, I think this post is long enough for now

Cheers,
-P

**DoubleChevron** · 1st September 2025, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by prelude

wow. I did not expect my "simple" contribution a while back to result in stoking up the fire underneath this debate so much

Perhaps in all the posts (this thread is up to almost 200 pages long by now!) all the pros? and cons have been lost in the discussion.

As a person that agrees with the venerable mr. Clarkson on EV's being soulless microwave ovens and chest freezers

allow me to address captain rightfoot's and others concerns regarding 'security?, ?big oil? and ?environmental impact? as best I can.

My little proza will take them in order of importance where possible.

Let's start with security. The argument has been made (albeit perhaps briefly and strewn across a large range of previous posts) that anything chinese is basically not a good idea. I agree. The ccp does not have the best interests of any citizens in the world at heart, not even their own quite often it seems. In my opinion this means that anything produced in that country by companies that are mainly chinese owned should be avoided. Put tarifs on them (seems to be popular) ban them, whatever. Since 90% of the entire green agenda seems to be coming from china in on form or another, I see it as a real and present danger and thus should be stamped out. I am sorry of that inconveniences any persons EV dream. And yes, that also means a bunch of electronics in modern ICE vehicles no doubt.

All that talk of 'my PV system produces?? what it has actually produced is more capital in a communist country that has clearly stated in, IIRC, 1948 that it wants to be the world dominating power by 2048 and that is not a good thing. Of course, unless you bought your installation a long long time ago when the rest of the world was still producing this stuff. At least today where the discussion is taking place chances are you are not even able to buy non chinese products.

Mind you, I am not going into the quality debate right now, I think we can skip that and look at the underlying problems first.

The best choice, what a certain much maligned person on the america's is trying to achieve, would be to take back production of 'stuff? (whatever it may be) to your country or region or at the very least your global allies. If I look at the united states of europe, pardon me, the european union, what we SHOULD have done is push low cost labour towards the former eastern block countries that were now members of the EU. That way capital would have flowed into the coffers of the (let's say) Polish, we would have increased their standard of living AND after 20 years they would not go for world domination but be a ?1st world? country, adding to the coffers of the EU strengthening the west in general.

I am fairly certain this can and should (have been) done in down undah albeit in a different way no doubt due to your geography. In any case, in short, ?fuel? security is a valid argument, but I believe this (above) to be a far more important problem to be solved FIRST.

Then, big oil as it was used to be known and anti climate change etc. opinions. I agree, admit, concur that these things have existed and probably still do. I do wish to point out however that ?big oil? as a collective term has been at least complimented or is being replaced even by a new 'mafia? if you will allow me: ?big green?. This lobby is at least as pernicious, manipulative, etc. as its other ?big? older brother from which it has pretty much copied the rulebook. It is not about the environment, it's bout making money, lots of it and by any means. If truly done in the name of the environment I salute the Rory Sutherland types that have masterminded this propaganda machine. Mind you, I am not arguing there is NO good to come from ?big green? but the same can be said about ?big oil?, it too had and still has its merits.

Lastly the environment. This is the big one isn't it? Firstly I would like to take the stance that CO2 is not important for this part of my lengthy post. ie. I will ignore it for now and address it at the very end. Let us first get into the impact of resources and recycling. It is here where I have the most problems with the modern world and the so called ?green revolution?. To the best of my knowledge and research capabilities (ie. the most accurate and recent data I can find) it seems that most things ?green? are not too recyclable unfortunately. Let's take the following premise:

an ICE and EV vehicle are the same apart from their propulsion. The chassis, bodywork, controls, wheels, windows, pretty much everything is the same. From a recycling/environmental impact POV we can cross these off and only deal with two things (well three actually).

fuel/battery
engine/electric motor

The third being difference in weight but we'll glance over that and hand that over to the EV for free for now

Let's start with the easy part, the engine/electric motor. Both are made of mainly aluminium and steel these days which is pretty easy to recycle well. Sure the electric motor has copper but being a metal it will recycle just fine. Both have a degree of plastics involved but we?'ll call that largely even. The ICE is bigger perhaps, but I do not see this as a very big deal since the recycling of metal is so very near to 100% anyway. We can cross of the larger volume of metal in an ICE to the increased complexity of rare earth magnets in the electric motor I guess.

Of course the fuel tank of a modern ICE vehicle is no longer made of steel but plastic so there is that. I would like to see them use metal again but hey. The battery, the big point of course, however is not as recyclable as far as I can find the best self reported figures (thus I do take em with a grain of salt) are 95% but real world figures seem to be closer to 80%. In comparison a lead acid battery is recycled up to 99%. I will skip a whole books worth of text in itself about how the processes work and what is recycled and what not since this post is going to big big enough as it is but it boils down to this: recovery of complex chemicals and plastics. This process is not free and acid leeching and other processes are not exactly environmentally friendly and energy intensive.

What you end up with in the end is a 'sludge? of questionable chemical stability and impact that is simply not economically viable to further refine or not even possible. This brings me neatly to my problem with the modern world: we are creating more and more ?green? options that in the end are just not that green. To simplify it by a lot, all 3 major green pushes of this moment have the same sludge problem. Solar panels are very recyclable, up to a point. Sure the metal frame and the glass panel are easy to do but the doped silicon wafers do have a limit as to where we can extract the silicon and separate the chemicals. Yet we have put uncountable millions of tons of the things everywhere. The same goes for LED lights, even more so I would argue, since the darn things are so small. (and thus more difficult to recycle)

So, no. I am sorry but ?green? is not what I would call any of these initiatives. We are creating rivers of chemical sludge and digging up the entire planet to get to them.

Let's put this into perspective, the best recyclable battery is lead acid. Sure it is heavier and lasts less but we could have all been driving milk floats decades ago! The same goes for lighting, the best recyclable light is the incandescent lightbulb, after all it is a piece of glass, some metal and a vacuum? Crush the darn thing, and melt down it's constituent parts. I mean, with all that green energy it would not be a problem that they are less efficient right?

So. I guess it is time to address that proverbial elephant in the room. CO2. According to some it is the end of the world (and not even as we know it but end period.) and to others it is plant food. I guess the truth is somewhere in between those two points (and I do not mean the middle). I find it fascinating to see that we make a HUGE problem out of it in some circles but we seem to refuse to actually fix it, and with that I do not mean go the entire green road we have discussed above. I know it is simplified but we are able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere if we want to and we can then either use it or put it back under ground. Sure it is very expensive but I wonder what is more expensive in the end? Let us expand that and put it like this: if climate change mitigation (sea level rise whatever) is going to cost the world trillions, is that not cheaper than what we are doing now? Would simply recycling CO2 into synthetic fuel not be at least as efficient?

Ah well, I think this post is long enough for now

Cheers,
-P

The batteries can be recycled. there was a few really good posts ... I think it was earlier in this thread. The only data you really find on it is fluff videos about making the "black sludge". The further processing this requires is obviously either very expensive and toxic .... or very energy consuming. I imagine "all of the above" is the correct answer. As there is no mention of it being processed commercially anywhere in the world (maybe I just suck at using google though).

Now these recycling plants... in theory are good, in practice burn down like clockwork. I'd rather have a nuclear power station in my backyard than a lithium battery facility of any description. Apparently ... these car giant batteries are "going to all be recyled". Just believe us, it will just happen

I'm pretty sure they will all just get burried as its the only safe option we will have.

If you read the last dozen pages, it really highlights the utter absurdity of the "pro ev" ... "pro net zero" action. I would compare it to a religious cult. You just change the topic, change the way the "thing" being discussed it stated so you can scream "see ... we are better".

I think EV's are fascinating, they just are not the future, they are a stepping stone our grandchildren will no doubt be suffering through the flow on enormous environment impacts of. How the hell are they going to handle even the millions of giant batteries that already exist today ... Maybe fill old mineshafts with them an cap the mineshafts off?

I don't belive the nonsense about china ... sure the EV's maybe spying on anyone near the car .... but so will every other car (not just the EV's). Now look at it from this perspective. If there is 100 million of the cars made.... Just imagine the crap downloaded and stored across a million "spy cars". it would be all but impossible to find anything useful amongst all the endless general chatter. It would be like searching for an single mosquitio in a country the size of australia (rather than a needle in a haystack).

There is nothing wrong with EV's, we should not be mandating them in any way, or gifting the low/low middle tax dollars to the wealthy to subsidise them. also there infrastructure should be 100% privately funded. There should be zero ... absolutely no tax dollars going toward EV's or the infractructure. This generation needs housing, not there tax dollars gifted to the wealthy. The poorer sections of the community need cheaper power, not more expensive power because we are madly spending billions on the power industry without builidng proper power stations that will last generations and generate power regardless of envionmental conditions.

**Captain_Rightfoot** · 5th September 2025, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

There is nothing wrong with EV's, we should not be mandating them in any way, or gifting the low/low middle tax dollars to the wealthy to subsidise them. also there infrastructure should be 100% privately funded. There should be zero ... absolutely no tax dollars going toward EV's or the infractructure. This generation needs housing, not there tax dollars gifted to the wealthy. The poorer sections of the community need cheaper power, not more expensive power because we are madly spending billions on the power industry without builidng proper power stations that will last generations and generate power regardless of envionmental conditions.

And again this thread... crazy. Totally denying the subsidies to ICE cars. Like instant asset depreciation so the tradies can get a new raptor or ram to tow their van. That's. ok. The housing crisis has been brewing for a quarter of a decade, but let's blame it on EV's.

This thread just goes around and around. If there is a good point on EV's we jump to "they will make everything catch fire".

Mate.. it's just a car with a (bigger) battery.

**DoubleChevron** · 5th September 2025, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

And again this thread... crazy. Totally denying the subsidies to ICE cars. Like instant asset depreciation so the tradies can get a new raptor or ram to tow their van. That's. ok. The housing crisis has been brewing for a quarter of a decade, but let's blame it on EV's.

This thread just goes around and around. If there is a good point on EV's we jump to "they will make everything catch fire".

Mate.. it's just a car with a (bigger) battery.

See what I mean, change the subject. Where did I say anything about EV's causing a housing crisis? I said, we should not be helping the wealthy (ie: anyone that can afford a brand new car) by gifting or subsidising the purchase of EVs. If we do this, we are taking the tax $$ of the lower to middle class, and gifting it to the wealthy.

I am sure there is tradies that buy a new ram to "tow the caravan". You would be talking the tiny minority, every scheme gets looted in some way. You can't compare business writeoffs that are helping build this countries housing and infrastructure to gifting tax dollars to the wealthy to subsidise a new shiny throw-away toy. An EV is not a work vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.... Unless maybe we bring back milk floats deliverying milk locally each morning. They could be electric.

How about talking about the points I've made rather than twisting and changing what has been said. I don't "blame" EVs for anything. Its a free country, people should be free to by whatever vehicle they please without government intervention.

I have no idea what will help the housing market or environment, but I am absolutely certain what we are doing is NOT helping either... its just throwing away tax payers $$$ that should be spent elsewhere (or not spent at all, we are gifting our kids and grandkids massives debts the country may never be able to pay off).

**NavyDiver** · 5th September 2025, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

And again this thread... crazy. Totally denying the subsidies to ICE cars. Like instant asset depreciation so the tradies can get a new raptor or ram to tow their van. That's. ok. The housing crisis has been brewing for a quarter of a decade, but let's blame it on EV's.

This thread just goes around and around. If there is a good point on EV's we jump to "they will make everything catch fire".

Mate.. it's just a car with a (bigger) battery.

Shhh I am buying a 30 Kwh battery for home at the moment. Not paying the full amount myself

.

On EVs my soulless blue non tow tug, non 4wd type newer one is over 65000km now, still on its first service

**DoubleChevron** · 5th September 2025, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Shhh I am buying a 30 Kwh battery for home at the moment. Not paying the full amount myself

.

On EVs my soulless blue non tow tug, non 4wd type newer one is over 65000km now, still on its first service

Yes, I know, I have taken advantage of every hot water service and solar panel scheme too. But the reality is all of these "grants" are taking tax payer money and gifting it to the wealthy that can afford housing.

I'll be most keen to here how the EV is doing if you still own it at 5 -> 8 years old. I have nothing against them and think they are fascinating. We just shouldn't be mandating or using tax payers $$$ for help people buy them.

**NavyDiver** · 5th September 2025, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

Yes, I know, I have taken advantage of every hot water service and solar panel scheme too. But the reality is all of these "grants" are taking tax payer money and gifting it to the wealthy that can afford housing.

I'll be most keen to here how the EV is doing if you still own it at 5 -> 8 years old. I have nothing against them and think they are fascinating. We just shouldn't be mandating or using tax payers $$$ for help people buy them.

No subsidies for my EV. Add new road user tax likely as well

I keep considering battery life as a factor worth looking at. Note a lot of OFF GRID types buy old Electric forklift wet cell old school that had a much higher failure rate and are still using the lower capacity they have years after others swapped them out. Off Grid types were starting to play with crashed written off EV batteries as well. That thought had crossed my mind as well given the hundreds of cells in most EVs. Not being a smart sparky type put me off that idea.

My first EV is still running about with a new owner who has not been grumpy with the dealer that sold it again after I traded it in. It is over 5 years old now. (MGXSev). It's a city type that brought it so its yearly amount of travel has dropped a lot now.

I am not an expert of course.

**DoubleChevron** · 5th September 2025, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

No subsidies for my EV. Add new road user tax likely as well

I keep considering battery life as a factor worth looking at. Note a lot of OFF GRID types buy old Electric forklift wet cell old school that had a much higher failure rate and are still using the lower capacity they have years after others swapped them out. Off Grid types were starting to play with crashed written off EV batteries as well. That thought had crossed my mind as well given the hundreds of cells in most EVs. Not being a smart sparky type put me off that idea.

My first EV is still running about with a new owner who has not been grumpy with the dealer that sold it again after I traded it in. It is over 5 years old now. (MGXSev). It's a city type that brought it so its yearly amount of travel has dropped a lot now.

I am not an expert of course.

I noticed the old battery forklifts were near free to get rid of them years ago. A quick google of the cost of batteries to get them working will show you why

.... I like your idea of repowering them given the surplus of lithium batteries we will no doubt end up with from damaged/written off EVs. Its all above my pay grade though. You need to be extraordinarily careful not to torch them off. Or even better, you fidn the EV's that don't have cells that can go into thermal run-away and use those ones.

This guys videos are really good. I've only seen a couple of them, but he explains really well what you need to do in order to safely charge the batteries.

**Captain_Rightfoot** · 5th September 2025, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

I noticed the old battery forklifts were near free to get rid of them years ago. A quick google of the cost of batteries to get them working will show you why

.... I like your idea of repowering them given the surplus of lithium batteries we will no doubt end up with from damaged/written off EVs. Its all above my pay grade though. You need to be extraordinarily careful not to torch them off. Or even better, you fidn the EV's that don't have cells that can go into thermal run-away and use those ones.

This guys videos are really good. I've only seen a couple of them, but he explains really well what you need to do in order to safely charge the batteries.

This is what I've been saying all along. LIFPO4 is very very safe. My car is LIFPO4. The aux battery in the Defender is LIFPO4.

**Captain_Rightfoot** · 5th September 2025, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

See what I mean, change the subject. Where did I say anything about EV's causing a housing crisis? I said, we should not be helping the wealthy (ie: anyone that can afford a brand new car) by gifting or subsidising the purchase of EVs. If we do this, we are taking the tax $$ of the lower to middle class, and gifting it to the wealthy.

I am sure there is tradies that buy a new ram to "tow the caravan". You would be talking the tiny minority, every scheme gets looted in some way. You can't compare business writeoffs that are helping build this countries housing and infrastructure to gifting tax dollars to the wealthy to subsidise a new shiny throw-away toy. An EV is not a work vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.... Unless maybe we bring back milk floats deliverying milk locally each morning. They could be electric.

How about talking about the points I've made rather than twisting and changing what has been said. I don't "blame" EVs for anything. Its a free country, people should be free to by whatever vehicle they please without government intervention.

I have no idea what will help the housing market or environment, but I am absolutely certain what we are doing is NOT helping either... its just throwing away tax payers $$$ that should be spent elsewhere (or not spent at all, we are gifting our kids and grandkids massives debts the country may never be able to pay off).

Frankly.. I've not really sure what your argument is. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement.

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

There is nothing wrong with EV's, we should not be mandating them in any way, or gifting the low/low middle tax dollars to the wealthy to subsidise them. also there infrastructure should be 100% privately funded. There should be zero ... absolutely no tax dollars going toward EV's or the infractructure. This generation needs housing, not there tax dollars gifted to the wealthy. The poorer sections of the community need cheaper power, not more expensive power because we are madly spending billions on the power industry without builidng proper power stations that will last generations and generate power regardless of envionmental conditions.

Thread: EV general discussion

Thread Tools

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions